Re: [Imap-protocol] Missing UIDNEXT during mailbox synchronization

On 31 Dec 2012 20:32, "Michael M Slusarz" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why not?  The stored UIDNEXT != the cached UIDNEXT.  So something is up
and the client should issue FETCH's to retrieve further information.
 UIDNEXT's have nothing to do with the actual next assigned UID, so I don't
care if it is incrementing or decrementing.  It only matters if it is
different.
>

Kind of. If size less cached size equals uidnext less cached uidnext, there
have been no expunges.

>> . uid fetch * (uid)
>> . OK Completed (0.000 sec)
>
>
> I may have mis-typed before.  A UID FETCH * is not useful - it should be
a FETCH * (UID) used instead to determine the last UID in the mailbox.  And
if the mailbox is empty, I agree that the actual UIDNEXT value can't be
determined.  In our client, we clear the UIDNEXT and cache so the next time
a message is seen the cache is restart/rebuilt.

Uid fetch * (uid) is the same as Fetch * (uid).

For updating a msgno/uid mapping, you want uid search. Ideally with return
(all), though in practise,  I doubt there are any servers that don't do
qresync but still do esearch.

_______________________________________________
Imap-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol